Den 09.09.2021 21:11, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 8:39:59 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 09.09.2021 06:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
>>> Assuming that, before launch, both clocks are set to frequencies:
>>>
>>> F's1 = Fe3 = 10.2300000000000 Mhz
>>> F's2 = 10.2299999954326 Mhz (detuned by exactly 0.0045674 Hz from Fs1)
>>>
>>> And assuming that, due to the GR-Schwarzschild effect, while on regular GPS orbit, they change to:
>
>> That's where you go wrong.
>> The frequencies of the satellite clocks don't change.
>
> Paul, this is embarrassing. You are contradicting your own writings here for, at least, 10 years.

No, I am not.
That GR says that the rate of a clock depends on its
distance from the Earth is a stupid misconception
which only ignoramuses have.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Interface Specification IS-GPS-800E
> 22 May 2018
>
> ....
> The nominal frequency of this source as it appears to an observer on the ground is 10.23 MHz.
...........
> The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10,
>

For someone who can read, this says:

Whether the satellite is on the ground or in orbit,
the frequency of the oscillator in the satellite is:
f = 10.23⋅(1 - 4.4647E-10) MHz = 10.2299999954326 MHz
This frequency doesn't change.

But when the satellite is in orbit:
The frequency as it appears to an observer on the ground is 10.23 MHz.

To repeat:
The frequency of the oscillator in the satellite is
10.2299999954326 MHz and never change,
but for an observer on the ground it appears to be
10.2300000000000 MHz.

This is what the scenario you snipped is all about,
I would advise you to read it again.

But if you find it too complicated, I will
give you a somewhat simpler question:

Simplified scenario:
--------------------
We have an oscillator with frequency 10 GHz
on the top of a 100 m high tower. The frequency
is transmitted by a radio sender.

At the bottom of the tower there is a frequency
counter which will count the cycles from
the clock in the tower.

Q1:
How many cycles will be received on the ground during
1000000 seconds (≈ 11.6 days) on the ground clock?

Q2:
Considered that all the transmitted cycles will be counted,
what will the clock in the tower show when the ground clock
shows 1000000 seconds?
(Both clocks are set to zero at the start.)

You don't have to think about relativity, use your common sense
together with the empirical fact that the signal from the clock
in the tower is gravitationally blue shifted.

f_ground/f_tower ≈ (1 + gh/c²) ≈ (1 + 1.1E-14)

This should be a simple problem, so please answer the questions.

Or will you flee the challenge?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 14:25:35 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 09.09.2021 21:11, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 8:39:59 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 09.09.2021 06:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >>> Assuming that, before launch, both clocks are set to frequencies:
> >>>
> >>> F's1 = Fe3 = 10.2300000000000 Mhz
> >>> F's2 = 10.2299999954326 Mhz (detuned by exactly 0.0045674 Hz from Fs1)
> >>>
> >>> And assuming that, due to the GR-Schwarzschild effect, while on regular GPS orbit, they change to:
> >
> >> That's where you go wrong.
> >> The frequencies of the satellite clocks don't change.
> >
> > Paul, this is embarrassing. You are contradicting your own writings here for, at least, 10 years.
> No, I am not.
> That GR says that the rate of a clock depends on its
> distance from the Earth is a stupid misconception
> which only ignoramuses have.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Interface Specification IS-GPS-800E
> > 22 May 2018
> >
> > ....
> > The nominal frequency of this source as it appears to an observer on the ground is 10.23 MHz.
> ..........
> > The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10,
> >
> For someone who can read, this says:
>
> Whether the satellite is on the ground or in orbit,
> the frequency of the oscillator in the satellite is:
> f = 10.23⋅(1 - 4.4647E-10) MHz = 10.2299999954326 MHz
> This frequency doesn't change.

Sorry, poor halfbrain, it's your opinion; the measurement
has a different one:(

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> To repeat:
> The frequency of the oscillator in the satellite is 10.2299999954326 MHz
> and never change,
> but for an observer on the ground it appears to be 10.2300000000000 MHz

10,229,999.9954326 MHz -> 10,229,999.9954326 Hz

-> 10,229,999,995432.6 uHz

plainly utopia thinking somebody would sense something like that. Only by
comparison to another similar clock, and reverse calculate the original
from the beats (the third frequency).

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 9:25:35 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 09.09.2021 21:11, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 8:39:59 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 09.09.2021 06:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >>> Assuming that, before launch, both clocks are set to frequencies:
> >>>
> >>> F's1 = Fe3 = 10.2300000000000 Mhz
> >>> F's2 = 10.2299999954326 Mhz (detuned by exactly 0.0045674 Hz from Fs1)
> >>>
> >>> And assuming that, due to the GR-Schwarzschild effect, while on regular GPS orbit, they change to:
> >
> >> That's where you go wrong.
> >> The frequencies of the satellite clocks don't change.
> >
> > Paul, this is embarrassing. You are contradicting your own writings here for, at least, 10 years.

> No, I am not.
> That GR says that the rate of a clock depends on its distance from the Earth is a stupid misconception
> which only ignoramuses have.

Paul, I wanted to check what think any relevant official site about a selected part of your assertion abou
ignoramuses, so I googled the part " [the rate of a clock depends on its distance from the Earth]". This is
the first result that I picked, from:

American Museum of Natural History
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/time/a-matter-of-time

**********************************************************************************************************************
A Matter of Time
Part of the Einstein exhibition.

Time seems to follow a universal, ticktock rhythm. But it doesn't.
...................................
What Is a Light Clock?

Imagine a clock that consists of a pulse of light and two mirrors, one at the top of the clock and one at the bottom.
The clock "ticks" when the pulse reaches the mirror at the top of the clock and "tocks" at the bottom. The pulse
bounces back and forth between the mirrors at a constant rate. When the clock moves, the time between ticks is longer.

The idea that a second is not always a second is one of the most surprising findings of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.
Researchers have actually observed this effect, which is only detectable at high speeds. Scientists synchronized two
highly accurate atomic clocks and then flew one around the Earth aboard an airplane. When the airborne clock returned to
Earth, it was a tiny fraction of a second behind the one that remained on the ground. A thought experiment using a light
clock reveals why this is so.

All moving clocks run slow-not just light clocks.

But the effect is insignificant except at speeds approaching that of light. Intriguingly, someone moving will not think that
her clock is running slow, because everything in her frame of reference will have slowed down as well. According to a
stationary observer in space watching Earth move around the Sun, all of the clocks on our planet are running slow,
yet we don't notice anything out of the ordinary.
**********************************************************************************************************************

And this is the second article that I've selected (all of them in the first page of the search:

Nature
Relativity comes down to Earth
https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2010.487

**********************************************************************************************************************
As Einstein predicted, a slow drive or a step up a ladder is enough to warp time.
........................
Chin-wen Chou and his colleagues at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder,
Colorado, have now demonstrated Einstein's theories on more mundane scales. In tests of the special and
general theories of relativity, the NIST researchers show that time speeds up if you climb just one rung up
a ladder, and slows down if you travel at just 36 kilometres per hour. Their results are reported in Science this week.
.............................
Chou and his team used an optical clock invented in 2005. This uses laser light, which has a frequency some
100,000 times higher than microwaves. Optical clocks are thus tens or hundreds of times more accurate than
microwave clocks — NIST's loses less than one second in three billion years.

Playing with time

General relativity states that time speeds up for objects as gravity weakens. To demonstrate this, Chou and his
colleagues raised one optical clock 33 centimetres above another. The slightly lower gravity at that height meant
that compared with the reference clock, the raised clock ticked with a fractional boost in frequency of 4 × 10^–17,
equivalent to a gain of 90 billionths of a second over 79 years.

To demonstrate special relativity, which says that time slows down for moving objects, the researchers jolted the
single atom in their optical clock so that it oscillated at relative speeds of less than 10 metres per second, or 36
kilometres per hour. This time, the clock's ticks seemed to drop by a fractional frequency of almost 6 × 10^–16.
............................
**********************************************************************************************************************

Now, I'd like that you retract from your comment: "That GR says that the rate of a clock depends on its distance
from the Earth is a stupid misconception which only ignoramuses have." OR to call ignoramuses to everyone
involved scientifically in these two articles.

> > Interface Specification IS-GPS-800E
> > 22 May 2018
> >
> > ....
> > The nominal frequency of this source as it appears to an observer on the ground is 10.23 MHz.
> ..........
> > The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10,

> For someone who can read, this says:

> Whether the satellite is on the ground or in orbit, the frequency of the oscillator in the satellite is:
> f = 10.23⋅(1 - 4.4647E-10) MHz = 10.2299999954326 MHz. This frequency doesn't change.
>
> But when the satellite is in orbit: The frequency as it appears to an observer on the ground is 10.23 MHz.
>
> To repeat: The frequency of the oscillator in the satellite is 10.2299999954326 MHz and never change,
> but for an observer on the ground it appears to be 10.2300000000000 MHz.
>
> This is what the scenario you snipped is all about, I would advise you to read it again.
>
> But if you find it too complicated, I will give you a somewhat simpler question:

<snip>

I think that I gave enough samples, by undisputed sources (or are you going to dispute it?) that says
that CLOCKS CHANGE PHYSICALLY AND PERMANENTLY under influence of SR, GR and nature. And
that such change IS PERMANENT.

Now, you can believe it or reject it (I do). But established science IS AGAINST YOUR AFFIRMATIONS:

"That GR says that the rate of a clock depends on its distance from the Earth is a stupid misconception
which only ignoramuses have."

or

"To repeat: The frequency of the oscillator in the satellite is 10.2299999954326 MHz and never change,"

Enough for now, at least for me.

My conclusion: That a theory conceived when nor what an atom was wasn't known neither what atom's energized
states were or hyperfine transitions were and, of course that a digital world of technology was 40 years ahead is
true has SUCH A NONSENSE as if a caveman could forecast the invention of mechanic clocks 100,000 years ahead.

So, if all of it is true, I'll start thinking about physics of the paranormal as a true science, that precognition is a true fact
and/or that "virtual" time travels (back and forth) are a real thing. Also, that we don't have a fucking clue about
what time flow is, and how to measure such expression of nature.

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 8:51:03 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> General relativity states that time speeds up for objects as gravity weakens. To demonstrate this, Chou and his
> colleagues raised one optical clock 33 centimetres above another. The slightly lower gravity at that height meant
> that compared with the reference clock, the raised clock ticked with a fractional boost in frequency of 4 × 10^–17,
> equivalent to a gain of 90 billionths of a second over 79 years.
>

A perfectly valid experiment. Shows the same thing as the much earlier experiment of Pound and Rebka.

Dick,

All these experiments prove that you are a nutter full of shit. You are unraveling with each post.You need to restart taking your anti-psychotic medications.

Please note the fallacious comment from Nature:

"Chin-wen Chou and his colleagues at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder,
Colorado, have now demonstrated Einstein's theories on more mundane scales."

"the raised clock (Δh = 33cm) ticked with a fractional boost in frequency of 4 × 10^–17, equivalent to a gain of
90 billionths of a second over 79 years."

And I had doubts about LIGO measuring Δh = 10^-18 mt !.

So, velocities can be measured with a margin error Δv/v ≤ 10^–17 !

What a world we are living at! Amazing!

The violation of Heisenberg uncertainty principle Δx.Δp ≥ h/4π is around the corner. Just one decade or two?

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 9:53:55 AM UTC-7, imbecile Richard Hertz wrote:
> Please note the fallacious comment from Nature:
> "Chin-wen Chou and his colleagues at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder,
> Colorado, have now demonstrated Einstein's theories on more mundane scales."
> "the raised clock (Δh = 33cm) ticked with a fractional boost in frequency of 4 × 10^–17, equivalent to a gain of
> 90 billionths of a second over 79 years."
> And I had doubts about LIGO measuring Δh = 10^-18 mt !.
>
> So, velocities can be measured with a margin error Δv/v ≤ 10^–17 !
>
Dick,

Not velocities, frequencies. The paper is quite clear. It is also quite clear that you are an imbecile.

On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 18:45:50 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 8:51:03 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > General relativity states that time speeds up for objects as gravity weakens. To demonstrate this, Chou and his
> > colleagues raised one optical clock 33 centimetres above another. The slightly lower gravity at that height meant
> > that compared with the reference clock, the raised clock ticked with a fractional boost in frequency of 4 × 10^–17,
> > equivalent to a gain of 90 billionths of a second over 79 years.
> >
> A perfectly valid experiment. Shows the same thing as the much earlier experiment of Pound and Rebka.

In the meantime in the real world, however, the clocks of GPS keep
indicating t'=t, just like serious clocks always did.

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 10:22:53 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> In the meantime in the real world, however, the clocks of GPS keep
> indicating t'=t, just like serious clocks always did.

....due to the mandated GR corrections, perpetually drunk toilet cleaner

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 12:51:03 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> Chou and his team used an optical clock invented in 2005. This uses laser light, which has a frequency some
> 100,000 times higher than microwaves. Optical clocks are THUS tens or hundreds of times more accurate than
> microwave clocks — NIST's loses less than one second in three billion years.

But but frequency meters have to count pulses in the region ABOVE 10^15 Hz or 1 PetaHertz, with pulse duration of
LESS THAN 10^-15 sec or 1 Femtosecond!

IF NOT, how could they resolve 0.04 PetaHertz (or 0.01 Femtosecond). This is the only way to calculate less than
1 second in three billion years (1 sec in 9.4608E+16 sec).

Nahh! Then, this validates space alien technology derived from Area 51 objects subject to reverse engineering!

By 2008, all-optical XOR, OR, NOT, and AND gates operated at 10 Ghz, and was projected to reach 100 Ghz.
This meant clocking and counting with pulses with 100 picoseconds width, expecting 10 psec in the future.

This is far from the "alleged" 0.001 picoseconds resolution in the 2010 Nature's article (10,000 times faster).

I smell fish here, and a very rotten one.

<snip>

This Nature article is more realistic. Published: 10 February 2017

This is supposed to be the state of the art in electronics 4 years ago.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep42082

**************************************************************************************************************************
Measurement of absolute frequency of continuous-wave terahertz radiation in real time using a free-running,
dual-wavelength mode-locked, erbium-doped fibre laser

Abstract

A single, free-running, dual-wavelength mode-locked, erbium-doped fibre laser was exploited to measure the
absolute frequency of continuous-wave terahertz (CW-THz) radiation in real time using dual THz combs of
photo-carriers (dual PC-THz combs). Two independent mode-locked laser beams with different wavelengths
and different repetition frequencies were generated from this laser and were used to generate dual PC-THz
combs having different frequency spacings in photoconductive antennae. Based on the dual PC-THz combs,
the absolute frequency of CW-THz radiation was determined with a relative precision of 1.2 × 10−9 and a
relative accuracy of 1.4 × 10−9 at a sampling rate of 100 Hz. Real-time determination of the absolute frequency
of CW-THz radiation varying over a few tens of GHz was also demonstrated. Use of a single dual-wavelength
mode-locked fibre laser, in place of dual mode-locked lasers, greatly reduced the size, complexity, and cost of
the measurement system while maintaining the real-time capability and high measurement precision.
.......................
THz wireless communication is highly promising, even though frequency allocation in the THz band (0.275–3 THz)
has not yet been established. For the purpose of evaluating sources and considering suitable frequency allocation,
it is essential to precisely determine the absolute frequency of CW-THz radiation.

**************************************************************************************************************************

So, a measurement of (say) 3 Thz (0.3333 picoseconds) can be performed by the old technique of sampling. With this
technique, measurements in the Ghz range were possible by sampling oscilloscopes 50 years ago. Now, the technique
improved 1,000 times by 2017. It's OK.

But NOT to measure with better resolution than 0.001 picoseconds by 2010.

The original article is FAKE NEWS, and Nature was a partner on this lie (as usually does with Einstein related stuff).

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 10:47:13 AM UTC-7, stubborn crank Richard Hertz wrote:
> I smell like fish here, and a very rotten one.
>
Yep

On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 19:38:15 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 10:22:53 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > In the meantime in the real world, however, the clocks of GPS keep
> > indicating t'=t, just like serious clocks always did.
> ...due to the mandated GR corrections, perpetually drunk toilet cleaner

Despite to the moronic screams that we're FORCED not to correct -
by your idiot gurus.

Den 10.09.2021 17:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 9:25:35 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> That GR says that the rate of a clock depends on its distance from the Earth is a stupid misconception
>> which only ignoramuses have.

You can kick and scream all you want, this is still true.

>
> The idea that a second is not always a second is one of the most surprising findings of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

Quite the contrary.
In physics, including SR an GR, "time" must be measurable,
and the only way to measure time is with a clock.
That means that "time" is per definition what a clock shows.
There is no alternative definition.

So a clock always run at its normal rate per definition.

That means that if two clocks measure different times
between two events, it is not because the clocks run
at different rates, it is because the time along the different
paths of the clocks through space and time are different.

The scenario below is an example of this:

>> We have an oscillator with frequency 10 GHz
>> on the top of a 100 m high tower. The frequency
>> is transmitted by a radio sender.
>>
>> At the bottom of the tower there is a frequency
>> counter which will count the cycles from
>> the clock in the tower.
>>
>> Q1:
>> How many cycles will be received on the ground during
>> 1000000 seconds (≈ 11.6 days) on the ground clock?
>>
>> Q2:
>> Considered that all the transmitted cycles will be counted,
>> what will the clock in the tower show when the ground clock
>> shows 1000000 seconds?
>> (Both clocks are set to zero at the start.)
>>
>>
>> You don't have to think about relativity, use your common sense
>> together with the empirical fact that the signal from the clock
>> in the tower is gravitationally blue shifted.
>>
>> f_ground/f_tower ≈ (1 + gh/c²) ≈ (1 + 1.1E-14)
>>
>> This should be a simple problem, so please answer the questions.
>>
>> Or will you flee the challenge?
>>

Am I to understand that you are fleeing the challenge? Why?
Did you find the problem too difficult, or did you realize
that you would have to give an answer that proved your
claims wrong?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 21:39:15 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> In physics, including SR an GR, "time" must be measurable,
> and the only way to measure time is with a clock.
> That means that "time" is per definition what a clock shows.
> There is no alternative definition.

Sorry, trash, but GPS clocks show t'=t. Goodbye, The Shit.

> That means that if two clocks measure different times
> between two events

They really don't. Sorry, trash.

>, it is not because the clocks run
> at different rates,

They really do. Sorry, trash.

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 4:39:15 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

<snip denial of first class sources that say: You are WRONG, relativist Paul>

> So a clock always run at its normal rate per definition.
>
> That means that if two clocks measure different times between two events, it is not because the clocks run
> at different rates, it is because the time along the different paths of the clocks through space and time are different.

I've shown you one article based on tests by NIST people. How do you dare to contradict them?

> The scenario below is an example of this:

<snip fallacious proposal. You are forcing me to accept your initial premises. Circular reasoning>

> >> You don't have to think about relativity, use your common sense together with the empirical fact
> >> that the signal from the clock in the tower is gravitationally blue shifted.

See? Forcing me to accept your premises. Paul, I even posted a Nature article that says OK to you, but
that frequencies are changing even with 33 cm heights. And, according to Hafele–Keating experiment,
the changes are PERMANENT!

It's a shame (for you) that I've become the relativist here and you the cranck (Oh! The irony!).

> Am I to understand that you are fleeing the challenge? Why?
> Did you find the problem too difficult, or did you realize that you would have to give an answer that proved your
> claims wrong?

I'm not fleeing the challenge. I just told you that your premises force me to accept gravitational blue shift,
which is very childish coming from you. I don't accept those premises to follow your deceiving problem.

I did worst than that: Becoming a sort of temporal adherent to relativity, I've found TWO ARTICLES that
prove what you are asking me to check! I can't believe that you are IN DENIAL of proof of your beloved
relativity, only to win this contest?

Answer, instead, what are your argument about the ignoramuses at Nature and the American Museum
of Natural History or BURN your credential from your local Church of Relativity. They could be reading
this, so watch your steps, relativist Paul!

You didn't like the articles, did you? Maybe you felt a burning pain inside you, as I posted the NIST based
article. I'm sure it must have shake your faith in relativity (both).

Idiotic crank, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 21:39:15 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>
>> In physics, including SR an GR, "time" must be measurable,
>> and the only way to measure time is with a clock.
>> That means that "time" is per definition what a clock shows.
>> There is no alternative definition.
>
> Sorry, trash, but GPS clocks show t'=t. Goodbye, The Shit.
>
>
>> That means that if two clocks measure different times
>> between two events
>
> They really don't. Sorry, trash.
>
>> , it is not because the clocks run
>> at different rates,
>
> They really do. Sorry, trash.

Nurses! The filthy dog is rubbing is dirty d*ck on vistor's
legs again.

On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 22:28:41 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Idiotic crank, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 21:39:15 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >
> >
> >> In physics, including SR an GR, "time" must be measurable,
> >> and the only way to measure time is with a clock.
> >> That means that "time" is per definition what a clock shows.
> >> There is no alternative definition.
> >
> > Sorry, trash, but GPS clocks show t'=t. Goodbye, The Shit.
> >
> >
> >> That means that if two clocks measure different times
> >> between two events
> >
> > They really don't. Sorry, trash.
> >
> >> , it is not because the clocks run
> >> at different rates,
> >
> > They really do. Sorry, trash.
> Nurses! The filthy dog is rubbing is dirty d*ck on vistor's
> legs again.

Take care of Python, nurse.

On 9/10/21 10:51 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> [quoting someone else]
>> Whether the satellite is on the ground or in orbit, the frequency
>> of the oscillator in the satellite is: f = 10.23⋅(1 - 4.4647E-10)
>> MHz = 10.2299999954326 MHz. This frequency doesn't change.

Right. It was constructed that way.

>> But when the satellite is in orbit: The frequency as it appears to
>> an observer on the ground is 10.23 MHz.

Right. For a SIGNAL from the satellite.

>> To repeat: The frequency of the oscillator in the satellite is
>> 10.2299999954326 MHz and never change, but for an observer on the
>> ground it appears to be 10.2300000000000 MHz.

Only when the satellite is in orbit. When the satellite is on the
ground, an observer on the ground measures 10.2299999954326 MHz. And
this is for a SIGNAL from the satellite, not the satellite's oscillator
itself.

> I think that I gave enough samples, by undisputed sources (or are you
> going to dispute it?) that says that CLOCKS CHANGE PHYSICALLY AND
> PERMANENTLY under influence of SR, GR and nature. And that such
> change IS PERMANENT.

This is just plain not true, and the quotes above DO NOT SAY THAT. You
REALLY need to learn how to read. What part of "This frequency doesn't
change." (from the first quote above) don't you understand?

N.B. The satellite's oscillator was constructed to oscillate at
10.2299999954326 MHz; it did not "change".

> "That GR says that the rate of a clock depends on its distance from
> the Earth is a stupid misconception which only ignoramuses have."

Yes, though overstated, as many popular writings claim that is so.

In actual fact, GR predicts that a clock never changes its intrinsic
(and therefore proper) tick rate.

> "To repeat: The frequency of the oscillator in the satellite is
> 10.2299999954326 MHz and never change,"

Right. So why did you say "... CLOCKS CHANGE PHYSICALLY AND PERMANENTLY"
above????

> My conclusion: [...]

.... is complete and utter nonsense.

GR does not discuss atoms or digital electronics. But is DOES give a
good and accurate model of gravitation and spacetime geometry in the
world we inhabit, at scales from ~ millimeters to at least the scale of
the galaxy (and probably beyond).

Tom Roberts

On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 23:59:51 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> > "That GR says that the rate of a clock depends on its distance from
> > the Earth is a stupid misconception which only ignoramuses have."
> Yes,

Your Shit may say, the measurement says oppositely.
What a pity that GPS staff has pissed at your moronic
screams that we're all FORCED...

> GR does not discuss atoms or digital electronics. But is DOES give a
> good and accurate model of gravitation and spacetime geometry in the
> world we inhabit

You inhabit a world of delusions, however. The real clocks
of real world keep indicating t'=t, like always.

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 6:59:51 PM UTC-3, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/10/21 10:51 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > [quoting someone else]
> >> Whether the satellite is on the ground or in orbit, the frequency
> >> of the oscillator in the satellite is: f = 10.23⋅(1 - 4.4647E-10)
> >> MHz = 10.2299999954326 MHz. This frequency doesn't change.
> Right. It was constructed that way.
> >> But when the satellite is in orbit: The frequency as it appears to
> >> an observer on the ground is 10.23 MHz.
> Right. For a SIGNAL from the satellite.
> >> To repeat: The frequency of the oscillator in the satellite is
> >> 10.2299999954326 MHz and never change, but for an observer on the
> >> ground it appears to be 10.2300000000000 MHz.
> Only when the satellite is in orbit. When the satellite is on the
> ground, an observer on the ground measures 10.2299999954326 MHz. And
> this is for a SIGNAL from the satellite, not the satellite's oscillator
> itself.
> > I think that I gave enough samples, by undisputed sources (or are you
> > going to dispute it?) that says that CLOCKS CHANGE PHYSICALLY AND
> > PERMANENTLY under influence of SR, GR and nature. And that such
> > change IS PERMANENT.
> This is just plain not true, and the quotes above DO NOT SAY THAT. You
> REALLY need to learn how to read. What part of "This frequency doesn't
> change." (from the first quote above) don't you understand?
>
> N.B. The satellite's oscillator was constructed to oscillate at
> 10.2299999954326 MHz; it did not "change".
> > "That GR says that the rate of a clock depends on its distance from
> > the Earth is a stupid misconception which only ignoramuses have."
> Yes, though overstated, as many popular writings claim that is so.
>
> In actual fact, GR predicts that a clock never changes its intrinsic
> (and therefore proper) tick rate.
> > "To repeat: The frequency of the oscillator in the satellite is
> > 10.2299999954326 MHz and never change,"
> Right. So why did you say "... CLOCKS CHANGE PHYSICALLY AND PERMANENTLY"
> above????
>
> > My conclusion: [...]
>
> ... is complete and utter nonsense.
>
> GR does not discuss atoms or digital electronics. But is DOES give a
> good and accurate model of gravitation and spacetime geometry in the
> world we inhabit, at scales from ~ millimeters to at least the scale of
> the galaxy (and probably beyond).
>
> Tom Roberts

Please, explain the outcome of the Hafele–Keating experiment.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html

Excerpt:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Around the World

In 1971, experimenters from the U.S. Naval Observatory undertook an experiment to test time dilation . They made airline flights around the world in both directions, each circuit taking about three days. They carried with them four cesium beam atomic clocks. When they RETURNED AND COMPARED their clocks with the clock of the Observatory in Washington, D.C., THEY HAD GAINED about 0.15 microseconds compared to the ground based clock.

Around-the-World Atomic Clocks

In October 1971, Hafele and Keating flew cesium beam atomic clocks around the world twice on regularly scheduled commercial airline flights, once to the East and once to the West. In this experiment, both gravitational time dilation and kinematic time dilation are significant - and are in fact of comparable magnitude. Their predicted and measured time dilation effects were as follows:

Predicted: Time difference in ns

Eastward Westward
Gravitational 144 +/- 14 179 +/- 18
Kinematic -184 +/- 18 96 +/- 10
Net effect -40 +/- 23 275 +/- 21
Observed: -59 +/- 10 273 +/- 21

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least three cesium atomic clocks involved. Two of them were brought in the flights, the third stood still
on Earth. A physical (digital) lecture shown that Time Clocks derived from three cesium based oscillators had
ACCUMULATED permanent differences in the COUNT (Paul) of pulses.

So, the frequencies changed with motion and gravitational effects, and the proof was "allegedly" stored
PERMANENTLY in the traveling clocks. When the "bubbles of local time" were broken and the
three atomic clocks were side by side, the difference in digital displays was at plain sight.

Explain this with all the power and wisdom of relativity, if you can.

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 3:24:55 PM UTC-7, utter cretin Richard Hertz wrote:
> So, the frequencies changed with motion and gravitational effects, and the proof was "allegedly" stored
> PERMANENTLY in the traveling clocks.

What changes is the total elapsed proper time as a function od path thru spacetime, utter imbecile. The clocks did not change, permanently or temporarily. Keep up the entertainment, clown.

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 11:27:26 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> So, a measurement of (say) 3 Thz (0.3333 picoseconds) can be performed by the old technique of sampling. With this
> technique, measurements in the Ghz range were possible by sampling oscilloscopes 50 years ago. Now, the technique
> improved 1,000 times by 2017. It's OK.
>
> But NOT to measure with better resolution than 0.001 picoseconds by 2010.
>
> The original article is FAKE NEWS, and Nature was a partner on this lie (as usually does with Einstein related stuff).

Cretinoid,

If you read the article you would have learned that:

1. The clock frequency is 1.4 petaHertz (i.e f=1.4 *10^15 Hz)
2. The precision of the measurement is \Delta f=0.8 miliHertz

3. Therefore , \frac{f}{\Delta f}=1.75*10^17

Please keep up the entertainment , pathetic imbecile.

On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 00:42:15 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 3:24:55 PM UTC-7, utter cretin Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > So, the frequencies changed with motion and gravitational effects, and the proof was "allegedly" stored
> > PERMANENTLY in the traveling clocks.
> What changes is the total elapsed proper time as a function od path thru spacetime, utter imbecile.

"Total elapsed proper time" may change as a function of "path
thru spacetime". Nobody cares, GPS time is what clocks indicate
i.e. t'=t, utter imbecile.

On 9/10/2021 4:12 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 4:39:15 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> <snip denial of first class sources that say: You are WRONG, relativist Paul>
>
>> So a clock always run at its normal rate per definition.
>>
>> That means that if two clocks measure different times between two events, it is not because the clocks run
>> at different rates, it is because the time along the different paths of the clocks through space and time are different.
>
> I've shown you one article based on tests by NIST people. How do you dare to contradict them?
>
>> The scenario below is an example of this:
>
> <snip fallacious proposal. You are forcing me to accept your initial premises. Circular reasoning>

<unsnip>

> We have an oscillator with frequency 10 GHz
> on the top of a 100 m high tower. The frequency
> is transmitted by a radio sender.
>
> At the bottom of the tower there is a frequency
> counter which will count the cycles from
> the clock in the tower.
>
> Q1:
> How many cycles will be received on the ground during
> 1000000 seconds (≈ 11.6 days) on the ground clock?
>
> Q2:
> Considered that all the transmitted cycles will be counted,
> what will the clock in the tower show when the ground clock
> shows 1000000 seconds?
> (Both clocks are set to zero at the start.)
>
>
> You don't have to think about relativity, use your common sense
> together with the empirical fact that the signal from the clock
> in the tower is gravitationally blue shifted.
>
> f_ground/f_tower ≈ (1 + gh/c²) ≈ (1 + 1.1E-14)
>
> This should be a simple problem, so please answer the questions.
>
> Or will you flee the challenge?

>>>> You don't have to think about relativity, use your common sense together with the empirical fact
>>>> that the signal from the clock in the tower is gravitationally blue shifted.
>
> See? Forcing me to accept your premises. Paul, I even posted a Nature article that says OK to you, but
> that frequencies are changing even with 33 cm heights.

So you agree with gravitational time dilation but refuse to accept
Paul's "premise" of gravitational time dilation?

Anyway, gravitational time dilation has been demonstrated both by the
experiment you reference and by Pound-Rebka, Gravity Probe A and others.

> And, according to Hafele–Keating experiment,
> the changes are PERMANENT!

?????

>> Am I to understand that you are fleeing the challenge? Why?
>> Did you find the problem too difficult, or did you realize that you would have to give an answer that proved your
>> claims wrong?
>
> I'm not fleeing the challenge. I just told you that your premises force me to accept gravitational blue shift,
> which is very childish coming from you. I don't accept those premises to follow your deceiving problem.
>
> I did worst than that: Becoming a sort of temporal adherent to relativity, I've found TWO ARTICLES that
> prove what you are asking me to check! I can't believe that you are IN DENIAL of proof of your beloved
> relativity, only to win this contest?

So do you deny gravitational blue shift as above or accept it when you
(apparently) accepted the shift from the clocks separated vertically?